When we obsess over the speed of travel—whether in our cars or on public transit—we’re missing the point of transportation. It’s not about how far you can get in a given time: it’s what you can get to.
Less than 20% of the country lives in regions with high-quality transit systems that serve most of the population. There is a stark divide between the six or eight large metros that are the most urban in the United States, and everywhere else.
One common argument against conventional public transit is that a transit agency could accommodate the same number of riders in a taxicab or dial-a-ride van. But is that really true?
A temporary experiment catalyzed a lasting improvement to transportation in Boston.
Incremental transit expansion should be Nashville’s new path forward.
Transit is an essential part of a Strong Towns approach. So is financial solvency. It’s time for public transit advocacy to move past build-it-and-they-will-come.
Great places need a train less than a train needs a great place.
Automated vehicles are coming whether we like it or not. In the realm of public transit, they could save us money and offer greater service options.
Why would this city invest in such an unnecessary transit project? Because it is not a transit investment at all.
Don't let your town be lured in by the big, shiny project. Focus on practical investments you can make to improve your community for the long haul.
The nationwide decrease in transit ridership should be a wake-up call about how not to build public transportation in our cities.
Transit is not a prerequisite for making a decent people-oriented neighborhood.
Better transit is badly needed in the Anaheim region but rather than provide that, the regional government spent millions on a shiny, new auto-oriented facility.
The Purple Line corridor truly merits a rail investment, not a bus rapid transit route.
Instead of building competing transit systems that are not compatible; why not work on utilizing existing systems to accomplish our goals while remaining economically sustainable?
If we approached transit from an incremental perspective instead of an all-at-once megaproject perspective, we wouldn’t base our standard of success on ridership numbers.
Langley Park’s auto-oriented development pattern imposes unneeded costs and burdens upon those who can least afford them.